Short Circuit 171 | Should Originalists Party Like It’s 1868, not 1791?
On a special Short Circuit, professors Christopher Green and Evan Bernick join your host Anthony Sanders to examine one of the great questions of the Fourteenth Amendment: When courts apply the Bill of Rights to the States, should they give those provisions the meaning they had when they were adopted, in 1791, or how they were understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, in 1868? The question is important, argue our guests, both methodologically and practically. Among other things, using the meaning the Bill of Rights had in 1868 might better fulfill the promise of Reconstruction, which was largely lost when the Supreme Court buried much of the Fourteenth Amendment in the years following the Civil War.
And speaking of Reconstruction, click here to see our 150th anniversary celebration of Section 1983, that we held earlier this week! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlrAK4OXvPQ
Torres v. Madrid, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-292_21p3.pdf
McDonald v. City of Chicago, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Graham v. Connor, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
Ramos v. Louisiana, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Christopher Green, https://law.olemiss.edu/faculty-directory/christopher-green/
Evan Bernick, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2547295
Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/
Want to email us? firstname.lastname@example.org
We discuss a couple legal immunities, one listeners will be familiar with and one that’s pretty unknown. The second is being addressed by our special guest, Aliza Shatzman. She is the co-founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a new nonprofit whose mission is to ensure that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza had a harrowing experience as a law clerk and found that the laws that apply to other government employees often don’t extend to those in the judicial branch. She also presents a recent case from the Fourth Circuit about a judicial branch employee who brought a number of claims to try and get around sovereign immunity—and actually succeeded on a few of them. Then Kirby Thomas West of IJ discusses a Fifth Circuit case with terrible facts, but a good outcome on the qualified immunity front.Read More
Recording in front of a live audience at the 2022 Institute for Justice’s Law Student Conference, we look at some of the best, and some of the worst, from the Fourth Circuit. First, Justin Pearson explains why a restriction on “political” advertising on the side of buses was unconstitutional even though it recognized the side of a bus is not a “public forum.” Then, Michael Bindas gives us his best sommelier (or is it wino?) impersonation and discusses a tipsy opinion allowing North Carolina to prevent out-of-state retailers from shipping wine to the state’s consumers. It’s pretty much not what the Supreme Court has said about the dormant Commerce Clause and alcohol.Read More